Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of the E-company established for the purpose of cleaning agency, etc. who has overall control over the above business.

The defendant, as an operator of the above company, pays wages equivalent to the provision of labor only to the workers who provide certain labor for the purpose of his direction and supervision, and the remuneration for officers, such as directors and auditors, other than the workers, has occupational duties to fairly execute the company's funds by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as stipulated in the articles of incorporation

On September 1, 2010, the Defendant paid totaling KRW 78,065,140 under the above title for 39 times from around 2013 to around November 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 1,793,980 as wages to the above G without a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on payment of remuneration, notwithstanding that there is no reason to pay wages as the fact that the Defendant violated the above duties at the above office of the above company, which was registered as an inside director of the above company, as a result of the Defendant’s regularly worked at the above company.

As a result, the defendant obtained property benefits equivalent to the above amount from the above G and suffered property damage equivalent to the above company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. An investigation report (a report accompanying documents related to a revised tax investigation report);

1. Investigation report (report on the details of currency held by the National Tax Service);

1. Investigation report (verification of details ofG wage specifications);

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that the payment of benefits or remuneration to G in return for the fact that G actually engaged in the decision-making as a registration director is justifiable, since it was conducted by the defendant and his/her defense counsel.